Vallejo-Torres Laura, Morris Stephen, Carr-Hill Roy, Dixon Paul, Law Malcom, Rice Nigel, Sutton Matthew
Health Care Evaluation Group, UCL Research Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Dec;69(11):1634-42. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.020. Epub 2009 Oct 8.
The needs component of the current formulae for allocating resources for hospital services and prescribing in England is based on a utilisation approach. This assumes that expenditure on NHS activity in different geographical areas reflects relative needs and supply conditions, and that these can be disentangled by regression models to yield an estimate of relative need. These assumptions have been challenged on the grounds that the needs of some groups may be systematically 'unmet'. Critics have suggested an alternative based on variations in the prevalence of health conditions, called the 'epidemiological approach'. The epidemiological approach uses direct measures of morbidity to allocate health care resources. It divides the total national budget into disease programmes based on primary diagnosis, computes the proportion of total cases for each programme in each geographical area, and then allocates budgets to geographical areas proportional to their share of total cases. The main obstacle to the epidemiological approach has been seen as its very demanding data requirements. But it also faces methodological challenges. These centre on the assumption of proportionality which, at the area level to which resources will be allocated, requires that the average level of need for 'cases' within each disease programme is the same in every area. We illustrate the epidemiological approach, and test the proportionality assumption underpinning it, using data from the 2002-2004 rounds of the Health Survey for England. We find regional variation in disease severity for major diseases, which suggests that health care needs for some conditions vary by area. Further analysis suggests that the epidemiological approach might systematically underallocate resources to rural areas, areas with younger populations, and deprived areas. Since the proportionality assumption underpinning the epidemiological approach does not hold, its adoption would fail to take account of variations in severity. This casts some doubt on the utility of the approach for resource allocation at the present time.
目前英国用于医院服务资源分配和开处方的公式中的需求部分是基于一种利用方法。这一方法假定,不同地理区域的国民医疗服务体系(NHS)活动支出反映了相对需求和供应条件,并且可以通过回归模型将这些因素区分开来,以得出相对需求的估计值。这些假设受到了质疑,理由是某些群体的需求可能系统性地“未得到满足”。批评者提出了一种基于健康状况患病率差异的替代方法,即“流行病学方法”。流行病学方法使用发病率的直接测量值来分配医疗资源。它根据初步诊断将国家总预算划分为不同的疾病项目,计算每个地理区域中每个项目的病例总数占比,然后按各区域病例总数占比的比例向其分配预算。流行病学方法的主要障碍一直被认为是其对数据要求极高。但它也面临方法学上的挑战。这些挑战集中在比例性假设上,在将进行资源分配的区域层面,这一假设要求每个疾病项目内“病例”的平均需求水平在每个区域都是相同的。我们使用2002 - 2004年几轮英格兰健康调查的数据来说明流行病学方法,并检验其背后的比例性假设。我们发现主要疾病的疾病严重程度存在地区差异,这表明某些疾病的医疗需求因地区而异。进一步分析表明,流行病学方法可能会系统性地将资源分配不足给农村地区、人口较年轻的地区和贫困地区。由于流行病学方法所依据的比例性假设不成立,采用该方法将无法考虑到严重程度的差异。这使得目前该方法在资源分配方面的效用受到了一些质疑。